Beheading video
on
Freecache
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Hey, maybe the ogrish.com is using this. They seem to be serving the beheading video, no prob. Let's see if it survives a slashdotting. See www.ogrish.com
Does a rich man have to give a beggar a few pennies? Nope, there's no law saying he has to. On the other hand, it certainly isn't going to hurt him, either. So for him to just swagger by a row full of starving paupers in tattered clothes without so much as a thought makes him a major league asshole.
I know, I know, you say "But these beggars and thieves have stolen from the rich man! Why should the rich man do them a favor?" But take a hard look at the rich man (Microsoft). Hasn't he, who has hoarded so much for himself, taken wealth away from so many other people to achieve his own wealth? Some might argue that because the wealthy man has accumulated his resources in a lawful manner the money is rightfully his. Perhaps charging exorbitant prices for your product is lawful, but does that make it just? And hasn't this rich man have a long record of acting in vicious ways to ensure that they can continue to hoard their treasures? The rich man is nothing but a well-dressed scoundrel who conceals his true inner nature.
The way I see it, Microsoft has an obligation to service the people with pirated copies. They have profited handsomely from society and it's laws that have allowed them to become corporate behemoths. It's time for them to give back.
I fail to understand your argument that because this is a problem that can be solved by technology, than it is a problem that does not require legislation.
One could make an argument the because a body scientific knowledge is available about the safety of food products, there is no need for the FDA to regulate our food supply. Why, we could all just become our own food safety experts and train ourselves to watch what we eat very closely so we don't ingest toxic substances, right?
You say you base your argument on practicality, but is it really practical for everyone who owns a PC to become experts at getting rid of spyware? Is that possible? I know some very intelligent people and they lead lives outside of the universe that is their home computer. They don't have the time or the interest to learn about spyware or how to get rid of it. They aren't going to devote time to thinking about administrative privileges and they've got teenage sons and daughters that click on every popup window just to see what happens. Don't people have enough to worry about these days? Why should every single person who owns a PC have to go out of their way to guard against a few assholes that want to secretively install software on computers to make a buck? It is not, as you propose, a practical solution nor an efficient one, and it won't work. All your solution will do is cause countless hours upon hours of lost time and frustration from people with computers are gummed up with bullshit.
Rather than have everyone fend for themselves, it's much more efficient if there are rules and guidelines hammered out in a democratic fashion. Sure, some people will get their feet stepped on, but that's democracy and it requires compromise. No one said regulation will produce utopia, but it will keep chaos at bay. As much as we'd love to have control over every aspect of our lives, it's just not possible, especially in a complex society.
from religious freaks. These nuts are taking over. People can't cope psychologically in today's complex world. Problem is, it's a world with nookular (as the chief religious nut pronounces it) weapons now.
Who does Microsoft thing they are appealing to? A bunch of 10 year olds? I'd be a little concerned about the conversation going on inside the cockpit. "Ever seen a grown man naked?"
Each open-source installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected software," McBride said in a letter, republished by the Open Source and Industry Alliance. "This means fewer jobs, less software revenue and reduced incentives for software companies to innovate...We are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of open-source software, under the GPL (the General Public License covers Linux and many other open-source programs), is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S. corporations realize," McBride said.
This is desperate war talk, folks. It's a sign that SCO has got its back against the wall. However, if the open source community does nothing to counter this kind of bullshit, there is a chance that their alarmist message will be heard. What I want to know is, what is the best way?
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to imagine the day when the political interests can persuade AOL to block other "undesirable" sites. Technically, it's not censorship because AOL has supposedly done it voluntarily; just like Clear Channel has "voluntarily" removed Howard Stern from their radion stations.
It's not the size of the organization that matters, it's whether the organization has external and internal checks and balances. It took just man to stir all of Germany up and get the assistance of millions of people to help him exterminate Jews.
We choose to have parades because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. --GW Bush
Bush has got to be the worst cheerleader for the cause. He likes to talk up his strong leadership qualities but what it really means is strong-arming policy decisions. That's just not enough to push a space mission of this magnitude through. We need someone who truly understands and has internalized the need to explore space and isn't repeating words put in his mouth.
Their objective right now is to supplant google...
Not really. Yahoo may lose 10% of the tech saavy audience in the short-term and 50% of the audience of the long-term as their reputation erodes (remember AltaVista?), but it's worth it to them if they can make a $100 million per year.
I don't think Google will be much different if they go public. Executives, board members, and majority stakeholders will always be tempted to make a quick killing for themselves. The pressure to run the gold ship aground and run off with the loot will always be there. And they would be in a position to make much more than $100 million.
Remember Pabst Blue Ribbon beer? That brand didn't die because the beer sucked. The brand died because executives pulled the plug on all advertising for the product. And all that money they saved on advertising became instant profit. Sure, beer sales plummeted after a few years, but the short-term rewards was all that mattered to the owners. And actually Pabst is still being sold and still makes a profit.
But back to Yahoo, it's also importnat to remember that it isn't just a search engine. They offer other services that will draw eyeballs to their site. That in turn, will feed the use of their search engine. Yahoo is relying on this factor to sustain the popularity of its web search feature.
No one has ever sacrificed their home or car because they coded free software. In fact, it's just the opposite. People who code free software already have an abundance of material blessings which in turn gives them the free time to produce something the rest of the world can, in turn, share.
Buy sh*t, get chicks. Sharing is for suckers. Is this guy the devil? Ah well, I guess they don't call it the rat race for nothing.
Anyway, the author seems to miss the obvious point that the free/open source software system pays off quite handsomely. For every 100 lines of code I write and share, there is a billion other lines of code free for me to use. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Although, it's published by a church in Boston, MA, the CS Monitor are published by the "good" kind of Christians and the paper is 99% secular. See this on their web site.
The kind of Christian's we need to watch for are the variety found in Georgia who want to purge the word "evolution" from the curriculum.
Back in the old days, you had to give the common person power less they rebel against you and cause all sorts of problems for the ruling class. I'm afraid that's all quickly coming to an end. Governments and heads of state will have such powerful technological tools at their disposal to nip any rebellion in the bud. Keylogging tools, surveillance cameras, etc. may all be benign in a democratic, but what about in a 100 years when we are bound to live in a very different kind of world? They very well could become the tools of oppression so many people fear.
I don't like this trend in technology and I don't trust it.
If you are going to college with the sole purpose of impressing potential future employers, you won't have a rewarding experience. If, however, you take every opportunity at college to develop your thinking, leadership, and communication skills, you will have a rich rewarding life and probably a good job as a bonus no matter what kind of degree you hold.
YOUR salary may be decreasing but as a result, MY salary has increased plus I'm still getting hefty bonuses. Thanks geeks for not putting up much of a fight as I divide and conquer hourly workers and now salaried while I quietly ship jobs overseas. My kids and the Ivy League school I'll be sending them to are deeply appreciative.
Respectfully,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Corporate Executive
Give me a machine that is a phone/ stereo / fax/ dvd/ player/ programmable graphic calculator with a limitless number of functinos/ tape recorder/ photo album/ file cabinet/ typewriter/ electronic bookkeeper/ video editing machine/ networked device/ 100% programmable and customizable/ entertainment center/ document scanner/ document printer/ document viewer/ video game machine...etc, etc. etc...
whose technology has been around for only around 25 years or so and I'll show you one complicated, frustrating machine to use.
But unlike most people, I'm totally fascinated by them and willing to spend thousands upon thousands of hours poking and prodding and experimenting. But I certainly do understand people's frustration and utter bafflement with these things. I sure as hell get frustrated tyring to do just about ANY new task with them. I recently got into doing a little video editing. I burned an mpeg2 to my hard drive. I played it and it worked fine. Then I transferred the video to another machine running the very same software (or so I thought) and it won't work! I'm informed I don't have the right "codec". So now I have to spend an hour or boning up (again) on the latest video compression technologies when all I wanted to do was show a 3 minute video of my kid. Any mortal would just throw up their hands and say "What the fuck!" and go spend some quality time with the family---probably a much more rewarding pursuit.
Also, it takes LOTS of practice to think in the abstract universe of a comuter, even for something as "simple" as word processing with a GUI. Compare it to a typewriter. You hit a physical key and see some metal object whack a sheet of paper on a roll and leaving a black inky stain behind that looks like a letter. Then you rub a gummy piece of rubber on the paper if you make a mistake. And if you fuck up too much, you start over. It's limited and pain in the ass technology but it has the advantage of laying out most of its inner workings right out in front of you. Not so writing a letter on a computer...you have to worry about fonts, colors, layout, images, spell checkers, grammar checkers, etc. all hidden by funky keystrokes/drop down menus/and bizarre mouse movement & click combinaions.
Computers are a new technology that most people have not grown up with and therefore far from intuitive. It's only a matter of course that many users are confused and that computer geeks get frustrated helping them. But as much as it can be annoying, patience and handholding is required. There really isn't a way aroud it and it's the only way to make the world a little more civil. Rest assured that as the years slide by, the technology will improve, and the kids today will be running the world and our pissed-off-selves will have moved on to something else to get annoyed with.
Looks like Bush Jr. is fixated on finishing up what his Dad couldn't: He announced this 15 years ago and it was ultimately scrapped because it was too expensive...even without the record deficits we face now.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, maybe the ogrish.com is using this. They seem to be serving the beheading video, no prob. Let's see if it survives a slashdotting. See www.ogrish.com
I know, I know, you say "But these beggars and thieves have stolen from the rich man! Why should the rich man do them a favor?" But take a hard look at the rich man (Microsoft). Hasn't he, who has hoarded so much for himself, taken wealth away from so many other people to achieve his own wealth? Some might argue that because the wealthy man has accumulated his resources in a lawful manner the money is rightfully his. Perhaps charging exorbitant prices for your product is lawful, but does that make it just? And hasn't this rich man have a long record of acting in vicious ways to ensure that they can continue to hoard their treasures? The rich man is nothing but a well-dressed scoundrel who conceals his true inner nature.
The way I see it, Microsoft has an obligation to service the people with pirated copies. They have profited handsomely from society and it's laws that have allowed them to become corporate behemoths. It's time for them to give back.
One could make an argument the because a body scientific knowledge is available about the safety of food products, there is no need for the FDA to regulate our food supply. Why, we could all just become our own food safety experts and train ourselves to watch what we eat very closely so we don't ingest toxic substances, right?
You say you base your argument on practicality, but is it really practical for everyone who owns a PC to become experts at getting rid of spyware? Is that possible? I know some very intelligent people and they lead lives outside of the universe that is their home computer. They don't have the time or the interest to learn about spyware or how to get rid of it. They aren't going to devote time to thinking about administrative privileges and they've got teenage sons and daughters that click on every popup window just to see what happens. Don't people have enough to worry about these days? Why should every single person who owns a PC have to go out of their way to guard against a few assholes that want to secretively install software on computers to make a buck? It is not, as you propose, a practical solution nor an efficient one, and it won't work. All your solution will do is cause countless hours upon hours of lost time and frustration from people with computers are gummed up with bullshit.
Rather than have everyone fend for themselves, it's much more efficient if there are rules and guidelines hammered out in a democratic fashion. Sure, some people will get their feet stepped on, but that's democracy and it requires compromise. No one said regulation will produce utopia, but it will keep chaos at bay. As much as we'd love to have control over every aspect of our lives, it's just not possible, especially in a complex society.
I agree people have the right to believe whatever they want. But I also have the right to think them big, fat, fucking morons.
from religious freaks. These nuts are taking over. People can't cope psychologically in today's complex world. Problem is, it's a world with nookular (as the chief religious nut pronounces it) weapons now.
Who does Microsoft thing they are appealing to? A bunch of 10 year olds? I'd be a little concerned about the conversation going on inside the cockpit. "Ever seen a grown man naked?"
Each open-source installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected software," McBride said in a letter, republished by the Open Source and Industry Alliance. "This means fewer jobs, less software revenue and reduced incentives for software companies to innovate...We are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of open-source software, under the GPL (the General Public License covers Linux and many other open-source programs), is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S. corporations realize," McBride said.
This is desperate war talk, folks. It's a sign that SCO has got its back against the wall. However, if the open source community does nothing to counter this kind of bullshit, there is a chance that their alarmist message will be heard. What I want to know is, what is the best way?
It doesn't take a lot of foresight to imagine the day when the political interests can persuade AOL to block other "undesirable" sites. Technically, it's not censorship because AOL has supposedly done it voluntarily; just like Clear Channel has "voluntarily" removed Howard Stern from their radion stations.
Um, it's the President the overseas the FBI. Their in the Executive branch, remember?
This news is good incentive to get out and vote in November.
1. Give away your product for free
2. Get users hooked on your product
3. Profit!
Too many people involved to keep it quiet.
It's not the size of the organization that matters, it's whether the organization has external and internal checks and balances. It took just man to stir all of Germany up and get the assistance of millions of people to help him exterminate Jews.
So what's the solution? Even more regulation? I think not. What this country needs is less government and more oligarchy.
Bush has got to be the worst cheerleader for the cause. He likes to talk up his strong leadership qualities but what it really means is strong-arming policy decisions. That's just not enough to push a space mission of this magnitude through. We need someone who truly understands and has internalized the need to explore space and isn't repeating words put in his mouth.
Steal it.
Their objective right now is to supplant google...
Not really. Yahoo may lose 10% of the tech saavy audience in the short-term and 50% of the audience of the long-term as their reputation erodes (remember AltaVista?), but it's worth it to them if they can make a $100 million per year.
I don't think Google will be much different if they go public. Executives, board members, and majority stakeholders will always be tempted to make a quick killing for themselves. The pressure to run the gold ship aground and run off with the loot will always be there. And they would be in a position to make much more than $100 million.
Remember Pabst Blue Ribbon beer? That brand didn't die because the beer sucked. The brand died because executives pulled the plug on all advertising for the product. And all that money they saved on advertising became instant profit. Sure, beer sales plummeted after a few years, but the short-term rewards was all that mattered to the owners. And actually Pabst is still being sold and still makes a profit.
But back to Yahoo, it's also importnat to remember that it isn't just a search engine. They offer other services that will draw eyeballs to their site. That in turn, will feed the use of their search engine. Yahoo is relying on this factor to sustain the popularity of its web search feature.
No one has ever sacrificed their home or car because they coded free software. In fact, it's just the opposite. People who code free software already have an abundance of material blessings which in turn gives them the free time to produce something the rest of the world can, in turn, share.
Buy sh*t, get chicks. Sharing is for suckers.
Is this guy the devil? Ah well, I guess they don't call it the rat race for nothing.
Anyway, the author seems to miss the obvious point that the free/open source software system pays off quite handsomely. For every 100 lines of code I write and share, there is a billion other lines of code free for me to use. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The kind of Christian's we need to watch for are the variety found in Georgia who want to purge the word "evolution" from the curriculum.
As long as there is inventive spirit and we are permited to walk around with at least moderately advanced technological tools/devices
You mean a place like North Korea?
Back in the old days, you had to give the common person power less they rebel against you and cause all sorts of problems for the ruling class. I'm afraid that's all quickly coming to an end. Governments and heads of state will have such powerful technological tools at their disposal to nip any rebellion in the bud. Keylogging tools, surveillance cameras, etc. may all be benign in a democratic, but what about in a 100 years when we are bound to live in a very different kind of world? They very well could become the tools of oppression so many people fear.
I don't like this trend in technology and I don't trust it.
If you are going to college with the sole purpose of impressing potential future employers, you won't have a rewarding experience. If, however, you take every opportunity at college to develop your thinking, leadership, and communication skills, you will have a rich rewarding life and probably a good job as a bonus no matter what kind of degree you hold.
Respectfully, Your Friendly Neighborhood Corporate Executive
whose technology has been around for only around 25 years or so and I'll show you one complicated, frustrating machine to use.
But unlike most people, I'm totally fascinated by them and willing to spend thousands upon thousands of hours poking and prodding and experimenting. But I certainly do understand people's frustration and utter bafflement with these things. I sure as hell get frustrated tyring to do just about ANY new task with them. I recently got into doing a little video editing. I burned an mpeg2 to my hard drive. I played it and it worked fine. Then I transferred the video to another machine running the very same software (or so I thought) and it won't work! I'm informed I don't have the right "codec". So now I have to spend an hour or boning up (again) on the latest video compression technologies when all I wanted to do was show a 3 minute video of my kid. Any mortal would just throw up their hands and say "What the fuck!" and go spend some quality time with the family---probably a much more rewarding pursuit.
Also, it takes LOTS of practice to think in the abstract universe of a comuter, even for something as "simple" as word processing with a GUI. Compare it to a typewriter. You hit a physical key and see some metal object whack a sheet of paper on a roll and leaving a black inky stain behind that looks like a letter. Then you rub a gummy piece of rubber on the paper if you make a mistake. And if you fuck up too much, you start over. It's limited and pain in the ass technology but it has the advantage of laying out most of its inner workings right out in front of you. Not so writing a letter on a computer...you have to worry about fonts, colors, layout, images, spell checkers, grammar checkers, etc. all hidden by funky keystrokes/drop down menus/and bizarre mouse movement & click combinaions.
Computers are a new technology that most people have not grown up with and therefore far from intuitive. It's only a matter of course that many users are confused and that computer geeks get frustrated helping them. But as much as it can be annoying, patience and handholding is required. There really isn't a way aroud it and it's the only way to make the world a little more civil. Rest assured that as the years slide by, the technology will improve, and the kids today will be running the world and our pissed-off-selves will have moved on to something else to get annoyed with.
So, there you go.
Looks like Bush Jr. is fixated on finishing up what his Dad couldn't: He announced this 15 years ago and it was ultimately scrapped because it was too expensive...even without the record deficits we face now.